LAW OF CRIMES – I INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE

DHEEPAN.R.U. (BC0180011), B.COM., LL.B. (Hons.), TNNLU

CULPABLE HOMICIDE

The burden to prove the crime of the accused stays in the hands of the prosecution even
though in case of S.105 of Indian Evidence Act. Till then the accused is an innocent. The
prosecution is ought to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This was said in the case of
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra.The prosecution is said to prove all the ingredients of the
offence which the accused is charged for. The court also plays a major role in analyzing all the
evidence both oral and documentary during the adjudication of justice in criminal law. The court
of law is very careful in the prevention of miscarriage of justice. Especially in cases of murder
and culpable homicide where the punishments are severe. Such cases the court cannot let an
innocent convicted and punished.

There exist a minute distinction between murder and culpable homicide but it is vital.
Basically culpable homicide is genus and murder is specie. All murder is culpable homicide but
all culpable homicide is not murder. There are three degree of culpable homicide namely murder
which is the gravest (s.300), first part of s.304, and lastly second part of s.304 which has lowest
punishment. S.304 deals with punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

EXCEPTIONS TO S.300

There are exceptions in situations where the culpable homicide is not amounting to
murder. In such cases, the accused is not given with the punishment for murder but punishment
for culpable homicide.

1. Culpable homicide doesn’t amount to murder when the offender is incapable of self control
by grave and sudden provocation but causes death of a person who gave provocation or act
done by mistake or accident. But the provocation should not be voluntary in nature. The test
of sudden provocation is sort out in the case of K.M.Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra. The
 sudden provocation is mental background created by the victim’s previous act. In the case of
Saroj v. State of W.B there was grave and sudden provocation with absence of premeditation.
The appellants were sentenced to seven years.
2. Culpable homicide is not murder, if the act by the offender is done in good faith or as a right
of private defense of person or property which exceeds the power of law and causes the death
of a person against whom the right of private defense is executed without any intention.
The right private defense can be exercised only when there is reasonable apprehension of
injury or death. This was said in case of Arun v. State of Maharashtra. The reasonable
apprehension should be probably derived from the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding. A public
servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law,
and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary
for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the
person whose death is caused.
Subha Naik v. R – under the superior’s order a constable fired on the crowd and caused death.
But it was not necessary to fire to disperse the crowd. Since he obeyed his superior he was
convicted under murder.
4. Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Surendar Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh laid four requirements for the exception of
s.300 in case of premeditation namely
a) it was a sudden fight;
b) there was no premeditation;
c) the act was done in a heat of passion; and
d) The assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
5. Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the
age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
This is otherwise called as consensual homicide or suicide pacts. In Ujagar Singh v. R, the
accused was punished under the first part of s.304, IPC for murdering his stepfather who was
infirm, old and invalid man with his own consent.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER

Culpable homicide is defined as a human being killing another human in a blameworthy

or criminal manner. Homicide may be either lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide occurs in case
of death caused by exercising the right of private defense. Unlawful homicide is killing a human
which is not justified under the law. In a famous case of State of AP.v. Rayavarappu Punnaya,
the court gave a comparison table between s.299 (culpable homicide) and s.300 (murder) of IPC

The difference between murder and culpable homicide is the intention to commit murder.
Under s.299 of IPC, whoever causes death with an intention of causing death, intentionally
causing bodily injury which is likely to cause death or doing an act with knowledge that it is
likely to cause death amounts to culpable homicide. Under s.300 of IPC, whoever causes death
with an intention of causing death, Causing such bodily injury as the offender knows it is likely
to cause death of a person, Intentionally causing bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death
or Doing an act with knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous and in all probability causes
death amounts to murder.

The cases in which the accused caused death to another, we need to look into the facts
and circumstances first. Since it caused death of a person, it comes under the ambit of culpable
homicide. Then we should examine whether the ingredients of murder under s.300 have been
satisfied. If yes it amounts to punishment under s.300 of IPC. In case it doesn’t satisfy the
ingredients of s.300, then we have to check whether it amounts to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and satisfies it ingredients. If it satisfies then the accused is punished under
s.304 of IPC and not for murder under s.300. This lowers the punishment of the accused which is
also a correct way adjudicating justice. The accused should be convicted and punished for the
offence he committed. The punishment should be equivalent to that of the offence. The degree of
probability of death determines the level or degree of culpable homicide.